MacReady Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 Lol, for the love of God Almighty, Venom did not make Deadpool money. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to everyone in here who uses global box office as some sort of success indicator before it finally sticks. Studios make literally pennies on the dollar globally. They probably make 25 cents for every dollar in China, and under 50 cents for every dollar everywhere else. Success is indicated by DOMESTIC BOX OFFICE RETURNS. Advertising is more than HALF of a movie's budget. Venom was made for 100 million. Advertising cost 50 million. 150 million dollars spent for a 213 million domestic return is NOT a success. Deadpool's budget was 58 million dollars. 58 + 29 (advertising) = 87 million budget. So look at them side by side and get this stupid ridiculous notion of Venom being a success out of your head: Deadpool - 87 cost - 363 return - 276 profit Deadpool 2 - 165 cost - 318 return - 153 profit Venom - 150 cost - 213 return - 63 profit Quote So in general, a movie has to recoup both it's budget and advertising/promotional costs. For a $75 million dollar movie A&P can range from $10 million to $70 million, sometimes doubling the costs of production. But these numbers are often murky estimates, and it's not always clear how much money a studio really spends. https://www.quora.com/How-much-should-a-big-budget-movie-make-at-the-box-office-relative-to-its-production-cost-to-be-considered-to-be-a-likely-financial-success There is not a single movie that loses money. Not one. With ancillary markets, every single movie made gets money back. Even Ghostbusters made money. It's not about how much money it makes, it's about investment:return ratios. Venom was a failure. It was not a success. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a Venom fan or ignorant to how movie studios operate or both. If Morbius or whatever it's called doesn't literally double its budget + advertising, and if Venom 2 doesn't literally double its budget + advertising DOMESTICALLY, Sony will pull the plug on the whole ugly thing and Venom, Carnage and every other villain will go to Disney because Sony cannot afford anymore modest failures or modest successes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 (edited) Venom made Deadpool money. Edit: Sorry, Venom made more money than either Deadpool movie. Edited May 11, 2019 by seminoles1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 (edited) 19 hours ago, seminoles1 said: Venom made Deadpool money. Edit: Sorry, Venom made more money than either Deadpool movie. I literally just explained how this isn't true. Literally the post above yours. Are you too stubborn to accept that or too something else? Read this. I dare you. Or you can just continue living in ignorance if you'd like. Quote It’s worth noting that far less of the Chinese box office revenue actually makes it back to the Studios when compared to other countries. If you want to know more about that, or other aspects of the Chinese market, then you may want to read: The rise and rise of the film business in China. https://stephenfollows.com/film-business-in-china/ Quote Revenue-sharing – whereby the Hollywood studios receives a percentage of the box office takings. This is the model used in almost all other countries, although in China the studio take is capped at 25% (13% pre-2012) whereas in most other countries it’s close to 50%. On top of this, the foreign filmmakers have to pay for all the marketing costs, which, in 2014, averaged 11% of the box office takings. So let's say 37.5% total foreign return (which doesn't include international advertising costs)... Deadpool - 363 million domestic + 420 foreign. 420 X .375 = 157. 157 + 363 = 520 million Venom - 213 domestic + 641 foreign. 641 X .375 = 240. 240 + 213 = 453 million. Deadpool - 433 million return on investment Venom - 303 million return on investment. You're wrong. Edited May 12, 2019 by Outpost31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 $855,000,000 > $785,000,000 > $783,000,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 8 hours ago, seminoles1 said: $855,000,000 > $785,000,000 > $783,000,000 Since I really can't tell, are you being purposefully obtuse or are you really unable to understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_shadows Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 44 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Since I really can't tell, are you being purposefully obtuse or are you really unable to understand? In not positive but I think he's just trying to argue that it made more money in theatres... Regardless on who the money actually went to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 Just now, rob_shadows said: In not positive but I think he's just trying to argue that it made more money in theatres... Regardless on who the money actually went to. Oh, so he thinks distribution companies and movie theaters in China have some sort of cabal capable of getting Sony to lose money for their own sake. Genius! I guess that makes sense. The Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2 made 757 million and 709 million worldwide in 2012 and 2014. Venom made 855 million worldwide in 2018. Adjusted for inflation, The Amazing Spider-Man - 827 million The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 752 million Venom - 855 million That 22 million difference between Amazing Spider-Man 1 and Venom counts for everything. That's why Sony kept the Amazing Spider-Man series going and didn't sell Spider-Man to Disney (let them use him). It's just so rigotdamndiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles1 Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Outpost31 said: Since I really can't tell, are you being purposefully obtuse or are you really unable to understand? I was being purposefully obtuse after the first post. I made the original comment without thinking of all the different actual aspects of the global box office haul and all that stuff. You explained this to me a year or 2 ago and I honestly appreciated it. However, the original point stands that it was profitable and it's not going to be scrapped after 1 movie. I kept posting like I did because you were being condescending and I knew it would trigger you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KManX89 Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 (edited) On 5/11/2019 at 11:27 AM, Outpost31 said: There is not a single movie that loses money. Not one. With ancillary markets, every single movie made gets money back. Even Ghostbusters made money. Not true when you factor in theater take + total budget. While it's true that not many movies gross less worldwide than their production budget (even Disaster Movie grossed more than it cost to make, albeit just barely), simply grossing more than your production budget doesn't necessarily mean profit when you factor in all costs and how much of the cut actually goes to the studio. GhostBusters actually lost $75 mil despite making $229m on a $160m budget. John Carter made $284m on a $263m budget and lost $122-200m. Green Lantern made $219m on a $200m budget and lost $75-90m. Fant4stic made $168m on a $120 budget and lost $80-100m. The Mummy made $410m on a $195m budget and lost $95m. List of biggest box office bombs. Edited May 12, 2019 by KManX89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 Just now, KManX89 said: Not true when you factor in theater take + total budget. It is true when you factor in ancillary markets. Yes, Ghostbusts lost money from its theatrical run. Tons of money. It has made that back after ancillary markets (toys, blu ray, DVD). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nex_Gen Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 On 5/12/2019 at 8:14 AM, seminoles1 said: I was being purposefully obtuse after the first post. I made the original comment without thinking of all the different actual aspects of the global box office haul and all that stuff. You explained this to me a year or 2 ago and I honestly appreciated it. However, the original point stands that it was profitable and it's not going to be scrapped after 1 movie. I kept posting like I did because you were being condescending and I knew it would trigger you. So y'all fighting or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Why are we arguing about Venom in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted May 18, 2019 Share Posted May 18, 2019 16 hours ago, D82 said: Why are we arguing about Venom in this thread? Because ten years from now when Tom Holland is playing an experienced Spider-Man and he needs a serious threat, people don't want him fighting The Looter and Kangaroo. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 On 5/18/2019 at 9:32 AM, Outpost31 said: Because ten years from now when Tom Holland is playing an experienced Spider-Man and he needs a serious threat, people don't want him fighting The Looter and Kangaroo. Speak for yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny/Patrick Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 Amazing movie, people will love one of the post credit scenes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.